



A- 




HALLET KILBOURN 



ON 



CONGRESS AND THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



The direct tax on the property and privileges of the 
people of the l>istrict of Columbia to the extent ot 
one-half of the expenses of maintaining and improv- 
ing the seat of the Government of the United States 
unconstitutional and void, as shown by opinion of 
the TJ. S. Supreme Court. 



Brief Pen Sketches illustrating some of the attractions of 
the Nation's Capital. 



The progress and prosperity of the city of Washington 
prophetically foreshadowed. 



Copies of this Pamphlet 

CAN BE HAD AT THE OfFICE OF GiBSON BkOS., PrINTERS, 

Cor. Pa. Avenue and 13th Street. 

Washington, D. C, 

November, 1897. 



HALLET KILBOURN 

ON 

CONGRESS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



Tlie Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 
cleciding^ tiiat Conj^ress can only lay a Direct Tax on the 
Property of the People of the District when snch tax 
is laid in Proportion to the Censns of Population as Di- 
rected to be taken by the Constitution. 



The Present Law of Congrress Imposing- the Direct Tax " on 
the Property and Privileges " of the People of the Dis- 
trict to the Extent of Fifty Per Cent, of the Expenses 
for the Maintenance and Improvement of "the Seat 
of the Government of the United States " Unconstitu- 
tional and Void. 



Often, when the annual appropriation bill of the District of 
Columbia is taken up for consideration in the House of Eepre- 
sentatives, some member arises and antagonizes its passage, as- 
serting that it is both unconstitutional and unwise to appropriate 
the money of the United States to pay one-half or any consider- 
able portion of the expenses of the government of the District. 

They contend that the Constitution, which gives Congress the 
power to " exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever 
over such District," carries with it authority to impose a direct 
tax upon the citizens and property located within its limits to 
an extent necessary for the government of such District. 

Assuming that these constitutional statesmen are honest and 
unprejudiced in their assertions, the following historical state- 
ments and opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States 




2 

are respectfully submitted for the consideration of themselves, 
their constituents, and all others who may be in doubt as to the 
constitutional status of the District of Columbia and the people 
resident therein. 



The selection of a district of territory for the exclusive use of 
the nation as the seat of the Government of the United States 
was made necessary by the earl}' experience of the Government 
in the sessions of Congress of the Confederation. During a ses- 
sion of Congress in Philadelj^hia, at the close of the Revolution, 
that body was surrounded and insulted by an insolent body of 
mutineers of the Continental army and a mob of disorderly per- 
sons. Congress applied to the executive authority of Pennsyl- 
vania for protection and defence, but the State authorities seemed 
powerless to render proper aid, and Congress indignantly re- 
moved to Princeton, New Jersey, that State promising to protect 
it from molestation and interference. Subsequently, for greater 
convenience. Congress adjourned to Annapolis, Maryland. 

The general dissatisfaction with the experience in Pennsyl- 
vania, and the degrading spectacle of a fugitive Congress, were 
sufficiently striking to impress upon the people of the nation the 
necessity of having a permanent seat of Government of the United 
States over which Congress could exercise exclusive legislative 
authority. As the result of such sentiment, a provision was em- 
bodied in the Constitution providing for such a Federal Capital, 
and the District of Columbia was finally selected for that exclu- 
sive purpose. 

A plan for the seat of Government of the United States was 
created by the Constitution, and its purposes clearly defined, be- 
fore any Congress of the United States convened. 

The Constitution was adopted in convention September 17, 
1787. 

The term of the Members of the First Congress commenced on 
March 4, 1789. 

The Constitution distinctly sets forth the powers to be ex- 
ercised by Congress over suclj district as was to become the seat 
of Government of the United States. 

Therefore, in the Constitution, and not in the acts of Congress, 



are located the fundamental principles and powers which wera to 
govern " such district as may, by the acceptance of Congre'js, be- 
come the seat of Government of the United States." 

Congress was empowered to select the district, but the Consti- 
tution defined the powers of Congress to be exercised after such 
selection was made. The constitutional provision is as follows : 
" That Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation 
in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles 
square) as may, by cession of particular States and the accept- 
ance by Congress, become the seat of the Government of the 
United States, and to exercise like authority over all places pur- 
chased by the consent of the legislature of the State, in which the 
same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock- 
yards, and other needful buildings." 

The District of Columbia was accepted as the permanent seat 
of the Government of the United States by an act of Congress 
approved July 16, 1790. 

Congress, therefore, became the nation's trustee, empowered 
by the Constitution to exercise exclusive legislation over the Fed- 
eral seat of the Government, in trust for the use, benefit, and pur- 
poses of the United States and the people thereof. When the 
District became the Federal Capital the people then residing 
within its territorial limits were at once merged into the general 
body politic of the United States, and became amenable to the 
laws of the nation and entirely relieved from State or local gov- 
ernment. And such is the constitutional status of all citizens 
who have since made this District their residence. 



The powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution, to ex- 
ercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia, are 
enumerated in that code of plenary authority, and Congress is 
confined to its provisions as the limit within which it can exercise 
any legislative power whatever ; in verification of which the fol- 
lowing exhaustive opinions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States are herewith appended : 



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
Februaey Teem, 1820. 

John Marshall, Chief Justice ; Bushrod Washington, William 
Johnson, Brockholst Livingston, Thomas Todd, Gabriel Duvall, 
Joseph Story, Associate Justices. 

LOUGHBOROUGH vs. BLAKE, 5 Wheaton, 317. 

Congress has authority to impose a direct tax on the District 
of Columbia, in proportion to the census directed to be taken by 
the Constitution. 

The power of Congress to levy and collect taxes, duties, im- 
posts, and excises, is co-extensive with the territory of the 
United States. 

The power of Congress to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all 
cases whatsoever within the District of Columbia, includes the 
power of taxing it. 

This was an action of trespass, brought in the Circuit Court 
for the District of Columbia, to try the right of Congress to im- 
pose a direct tax on that District. 

Marshall, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. 

This case presents to the consideration of the court a single 
question. It is this : Has Congress a right to impose a direct 
tax on the District of Columbia? 

The counsel who maintains the negative has contended that 
Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one 
character, as legislating for the States ; in the other, as a local 
legislature for the District. In the latter character, it is admitted 
that the power of levying direct taxes may be exercised ; but, it 
is contended, for District purposes only, in like manner as the 
legislature of a State may tax the people of a State for State pur- 
poses. 

Without inquiring at present into the soundness of this dis- 
tinction, its possible influence on the application in this District 
of the first article of the Constitution, and of several of the 
amendments, may not be altogether unworthy of consideration. 
It will readily suggest itself to the gentlemen who press this 
argument that those articles which, in general terms, restrain 
the power of Congress, maj' be applied to the laws enacted by 
that body for the District, if it be considered as governing the 
District in its character as the National Legislature, with less 
difficulty than if it be considered a mere local legislature. 



But we deem it unnecessary to pursue this investigation, be- 
cause we think the right of Congress to tax the District does not 
depend solely on the grant of exclusive legislation. 

The 8th section of the first article gives to Congress the 
" power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," 
for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, 
without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all 
places over which the Government extends. If this could be 
doubiied, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words, which 
modify the grant. These words are : " but all duties, imposts, 
and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." It 
will not be contended that the modification of the power extends 
to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power, 
then, to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exer- 
cised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does 
this term designate the whole or any particular portion of the 
American empire *? Certainly this question can admit of but one 
answer. It is the name given to our great Republic, which is 
composed of States and Territories. The District of Columbia, 
or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the 
United States than Maryland or Penusj'lvauia ; and it is not less 
necessary, on the princij^les of our Constitution, that uniformity 
in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be ob- 
served in the one than in the other. Since then the power to lay 
and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes, is obviously coex- 
tensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and 
excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United 
States, it follows that the power to impose direct taxes also ex- 
tends throughout the United States. 

The extent of the grant being ascertained, how far is it 
abridged by any part of the Constitution? 

The 20th section of the first article declares t^at " Representa- 
tives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
States which may be included within this Union, according to 
their respective numbers." 

The objecc of this regulation is, we think, to furnish a standard 
by whic^i taxes are to be apportioned, not to exempt from their 
opeiation any part of our country. Had the intention been to 
exempt from taxation those who were not represented in Con- 
gress, that intention would have been expressed in direct terms. 
The power having been expressly granted, the exception would 
have been expressly madeT) But a limitation can scarcely be said 
to be insinuated. The words used do not mean that direct taxes 
shall be imj)osed on States only which are represented, or shall 
be apportioned to Representatives ; but that direct taxation, in 
its application to States, shall be apportioned to numbers. Rep- 
resentation is not made the foundation of taxationr\ If, under 



6 

the enumeratiou of a Representative for every 30,000 souls, one 
State bad been found to contain 59,000 souls, and another 60,000, 
the first would have been entitled to only one Representative, 
and the last to two. Their taxes, however, would not have been 
as one to two, but as fifty-nine to sixty. This clause was obvi- 
ously not intended to create any exemption from taxation, or to 
make taxation dependent on representation, but to furnish a 
standard for the apportionment of each on the States. 

The 4th paragraph of the 9th section of the same Article will 
next be considered. It is in these words: "No capitation, or 
other direct tax, shall be laid, uuless in proportion to the census 
or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." 

The census referred to is in that clause of the Constitution 
which has just been considered, which makes numbers the 
standard by which both Representatives and direct taxes shall 
be apportioned among the States. The actual enumeration is to 
be made " within three years after the first meeting of Congress 
of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten 
years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." 

As the direct and declared object of this census is to furnish a 
standard by which " Representatives and direct taxes may be 
apportioned among the several States which m.a.j be included 
within the Union," it will be admitted that the omission to ex- 
tend it to the District or the Territox'ies, would not render it de- 
fective. 

The census referred to is admitted to be a census exhibiting 
the numbers of the respective States. It cannot, however, be 
admitted that the argument which limits the application of the 
power of direct taxation to the population contained in this 
census is a just one. The language of the clause does not imply 
this restriction. It is not that " no capitation or other direct tax 
shall be laid unless on those comprehended within the census 
hereinbefore directed to be taken," but, " unless in proportion 
to " that census. Now this proportion may be applied to the 
District or Territories. If an enumeration he taken of the popu- 
lation in the District and Territories on the same principle on 
which the ennmeration of the respective States is made, then the 
information is acquired by lohich a direct tax my he imposed on 
the District and Territories, " in proportion to the censiis or 
enumeration,^'' which the Constitutioii directs to he taken. 

The standard, then, hy which direct taxes miist be laid, is ap- 
plicable to this District, and loill enable Congress to apportion on 
it its just and equal share of the burden, vnth the same accuracy 
as on the respective States. If the tax be laid hi this proportion 
it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in pro- 
portion to the census or enumeration referred to. 

But the argument is presented in another form, in which its 



refutation is more difficult. It is urged against this construction 
that it would produce the necessity of extending direct taxation 
to the District and Territories, which would not only be incon- 
venient, but contrary to the understanding and practice of the 
whole Government. If the power of imposing direct taxes be 
coextensive with the United States, then it is contended that the 
restrictive clause, if applicable to the District and Territories, 
requires that the tax should be extended to them, since to omit 
them would be to violate the rule of proportion. 

We think a satisfactory answer to this argument may be drawn 
from a fair comparative view of the different clauses of the Con- 
stitution which have been recited. 

That the general grant of power to lay and collect taxes is 
made in terms which comprehend the District and Territories as 
well as the States is, we think, incontrovertible. The subsequent 
clauses are intended to regulate the exercise of this power, not to 
withdraw from it any portion of the community. The words in 
which those clauses are expressed import this intention. In thus 
regulating its exercise, a rule is given in the 2d section of the 
first article for its application to the respective States. That 
rule declares how direct taxes upon the States shall be imposed. 
They shall be apportioned upon the several States according to 
their numbers. If, then, a direct tax be laid at all, it mu.st be 
laid on every State, conformably to the rule provided in the Con- 
stitution. Congress has clearly no power to exempt any State 
from its due share of the burden. But this regulation is expressly 
confined to the States, and creates no necessity for extending the 
tax to the District or Territories. The words of the 9th section 
do not in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when 
resorted to, shall be extended to the Territories, as the words of 
the 2d section require that it shall be extended to all the States. 
They, therefore, may, without violence, be understood to give a 
rule when the Territories shall be taxed, without imposing the 
necessity of taxing them. It could scarcely escape the members 
of the Convention, that the ex^^ense of executiug the law in a Ter- 
ritory might exceed the amount of the tax. But, be this as it 
may, the doubt created by the words of the 9th section relates to 
the obligation to apportion a direct tax on the Territories as well 
as on the States, rather than the power to do so. 

If then the language of the Constitution be construed to com- 
prehend the Territories and the District of Columbia, as well as 
the States, that language confers on Congress the power of tax- 
ing the District and Territories as well as the States. If the 
general language of the Constitution should be confined to the 
States, still the 16th paragraph of the 8th section gives to Con- 
gress the power of exercising "exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatsoever within this District." 



8 

On the extent of these terms, according to the common under- 
standing of mankind, there can be no difference of opinion ; but 
it is contended that they must be limited by that great princi- 
ple which was asserted in our Revolution, that representation is 
inseparable from taxation. 

The difference between requiring a continent, with an immense 
population, to submit to be taxed by a Government, having no com- 
mon interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean, restrained 
by no principle of apportionment, and associated with it by no 
common feelings ; and permitting the Representatives of the 
American people, under the restrictions of our Constitution, to 
tax a part of the society which is either in a state of infancy 
advancing to manhood, looking forward to complete equality so 
soon as that state of manhood shall be attained, as is the case 
with the Territories ; or which has voluntarily relinquished the 
right of representation, and has adopted the whole body of Con- 
gress for its legitimate government, as is the case toith the Dis- 
trict, is too obvious not to presoit itself to the minds of all. 
Although, in theory, it might be more congenial to the spirit of 
our institutions to admit a Representative from the District, it 
may be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered 
thereby the more secure ; and certainly the Constitution does 
not consider their want of a Representative in Congress as ex- 
empfing it from equal taxation. 

If it were true that, according to the spirit of our Constitu- 
tion, the power of taxation mnst be limited by the right of repre- 
sentation, whence is derived the right to lay and collect duties, 
imposts, and excises within this District ? If the principles of 
liberty and of our Constitution forbid the raising of revenue 
from those who are not represented, do not these principles for- 
bid the raising it by duties, imposts, and excises, as well as by 
a direct tax ? If the principles of our Revolution give a rule ap- 
plicable to this case, we cannot have forgotten that neither the 
Stamp Act nor the duty on tea were direct taxes. 

Yet it is admitted that the Constitution not only allows, but 
enjoins the Government to extend the ordinary revenue system 
to this District. 

If it be said that the principle of uniformity, established in the 
Constitution, secures the District from op^Dression in the imposi- 
tion of indirect taxes, it is not less true that the principle oy 
apportionment, also, established in the Constitution, secures the 
District from any op^^ressiue exercise of the power to lay and 
collect direct taxes. 

After giving this subject its serious attention, the court is 
unanimously of opinion that Congress possesses, under the Con- 
stitution, the jDower to lay and collect direct taxes within the 
District of Columbia, in proportion to the census directed to be 
taken by the Co)istitution. 



ANOTHER IMPORTANT OPINION. 

In the notable case of Cohen vs. Virginia, 6th Wheaton, 264, 
February term, 1821, composed of the same bench which decided 
the case of Loughborough vs. Blake, the unanimous opinion of 
the court was delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, and in it sev- 
eral references are made bearing directly upon the authority of 
Congress to exercise exclusive legislation over the District of 
Columbia, forts, arsenals, dockyards, etc. 

The following quotations are from this opinion of the court : 

" In the enumeration of the powers of Congress which is made 
in the 8th section of the first article of the Constitution, we find 
that of exercising exclusive legislation over such District as shall 
become the seat of Government. This jyoioei; like all others 
tchich are S2yecified, is conferred on Congress as the legislature 
of the Union J for, stri]) thetn of that character, and they woidd 
not possess it. In no other character can it be exercised. In 
legislating for the District, they necessarily ^J'^^eserve the char- 
acter of the legislature of the Union / for it is iii that cha.ructer 
alone that the Constitution confers on. them this poioer of exclu- 
sive legislation. This proposition need not be enforced." 

" The 2nd clause of the sixth article declares that : ' This 
Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be 
made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the 
land.'" 

"The clause which gives exclusive jurisdiction is, unquestion- 
ably, a part of the Constitution, and, as such, binds all the 
United States." 

" Those who contend that acts of Congress made in pursuance 
of this power do not, like acts made in pursuance of other 
powers, bind the nation, ought to show some safe and clear rule 
which shall support this construction, and prove that an act of 
Congress, clothed in all the forms which attend other legislative 
acts, and passed in virtue of a power conferred on, and exercised 
by Congress, as the legislature of the Union, is not a law of the 
United States, and does not bind them." 

" One of the gentlemen sought to illustrate his proposition 
that Congress, when legislating for the District, assumed a dis- 
tinct character, and teas reduced to a mere local legislature, 
to/iose Imos could 2>ossess no obligation out of the ten miles 

square, by a reference to the complex character of this court.''^ 
******* 



10 

" Since Congress legislates in the same forms and in the same 
chai'acter, in virtue of powers of equal obligation, conferred in 
the same instrument, when exercising its exclusive powers of leg- 
islation, as well as when exercising those which are limited, we 
must inquire whether there be anything in the nature of this ex- 
clusive legislation which necessarily confines the operation of the 
laws, made in virtue of this power, to the place with a view to 
which they are made." 

¥^ -^ tI? vF" 'I* v|r 'Sic 

" Connected with the power to legislate within this District is 
a similar power in forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc." 

■Jf^ 'r ¥^ ■5ff ■3lr Tit T^ 

"Let these actual provisions of the law, or any other provisions 
which can be made on the subject, be considered with a view to 
the character in which the (Jongress acts when exercising the 
2)oioers of exclusive legislation." 

******* 

" The solution, and the only solution of the difficulty is, that 
the power vested in Congress, as the legislature of the United 
States, to legislate exclusively uiithin any place ceded by a State, 
carries with it, as an incident, the right to make that power 

effectual.''^ 

******* 

"But we know that the principle does not apply, and the reason 
is, that Congress is not a local legislature, hut exercises this par- 
ticular power, like all its other poioers, in its high character as 
the legislature of the Union. The American people thought it a 
necessary power, and they conferred it for their own benefit. 
Being so conferred, it carries with it all those incidental powers 
which are necessary to its complete and effectual execution." 

" Whether any particular law be designated to operate without 
the District or not, depends upon the words of that law. If it 
be designed so to operate, then the question whether tlie power 
so exercised be incidental to the power of exclusive legislation, 
and be warranted by the Constitution, requires a consideration 
of that instrument. In such cases, the Constitution and the law 
must be compared and construed. This is the exercise of juris- 
diction. It is the only exercise of wliich is allowed in such a 



case." 



OTHER DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT. 

The only other decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States since the elaborate opinions rendered in the cases of 
Loughborough v. Blake, and Cohen v. Virginia, which indicate 



11 

the powers of the Constitution confen-ed on Congress to impose 
direct taxes on " the property and privileges of the District " for 
improving the national seat of the Government of the United 
States, are the cases of Mattingly v. District of Columbia (97 
U. S. 687), Welsh v. Cook (97 U. S. 541), and Gibbons y. District 
of Columbia (116 U. S. 404). The gist of these opinions is as 
follows : 

In the case of Mattingly v. District of Columbia, Justice 
Strong, in delivering the opinion, says : 

" Under the Constitution Congress had power to exercise ex- 
clusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District, and 
that includes the power of taxation (Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 
264). Congress may legislate within the District respecting the 
people therein as may the legislature of any State over any of its 
subordinate municiiDalities." 

In the case of Welsh v. Cook, Justice Hunt, in delivering the 
opinion, says : 

" It is not open to reasonable doubt that Congress had the 
power to invest, and did invest, the District government with 
legislative authority."' 

In the case of Gibbons v. District of Columbia, Justice Gray, 
in delivering the opinion says : 

" The objection taken in argument ... is founded on a mis- 
understanding of the case of Loughborough v. Blake (5 Wheat. 
317). The point there decided was, that an act of Congress lay- 
ing a direct tax throughout the United States in proportion to 
the census to be taken by the United States, might comprehend 
the District of Columbia ; and the power of Congress legislating 
as a local legislature for the District, to lay taxes for District 
purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a State for 
State purposes, was exjjressly admitted and has never since been 
doubted (Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317 ; Welsh ». Cook, 
97 U. S. 541 ; Mattingly v. District of Columbia, 97 U. S. 687). 

" In the exercise of this power Congress, like any State legis- 
lature, unrestricted by any constitutional provisions, may, at its 
discretion, wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxa- 
tion, or may tax them at a lower rate than any other property." 



12 



OPINIONS OF COUKT COMPARED. 

In comparing the brief opinions in the cases decided by Jus- 
tices Strong, Hunt, and Gray, with the ehiborate and exhaustive 
interpretation of the powers and restrictions of the Constitution, 
as delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, such comparison is made 
in the spirit of the language suggested iu the case of Cohen v. 
Virginia, wherein the Chief Justice says : 

" The question whether the power so exercised be incidental 
to the power of exclusive legislation, and be warranted by the 
Constitution, requires the consideration of that instrument. In 
such cases the Constitution and the law must be compared and 
construed." 

The question before the court in the case of Loughborough v. 
Blake is first stated as follows : 

" This case jDresents to the consideration of the court a single 
question. It is this : Has Congress a right to impose a direct 
tax on the District of Columbia'?" 

Chief Justice Marshall then proceeds, in the next paragraph, 
to state the position of counsel who argued the negative, as fol- 
lows : 

"The counsel who maintains the negative has contended that 
Congress must be considered in two distinct characters. In one 
character as legislating for the States, in the other, as a local 
legislature for the District. In the latter character, it is admitted 
that the power of levying direct taxes may be exercised ; but, it 
is contended, for District purposes only, in like manner as the 
legislature of a State may tax the people of a State for State pur- 
poses." 

It is very important to bear in mind that the above paragraph 
states merely the admission of counsel, and is not the opinion 
of the court. 

It was counsel who contended in argument "that Congress 
must be considered in two distinct characters ; in one character 
as legislating for the States, in the other as a local legislature for 
the District." 

It was counsel who asserted that " in the latter character it is 
admittted that the power of levying direct taxes may be exer- 



13 

cised; but, it is contended, for District purposes only, in like man- 
ner as the legislature of a State may tax the people of a State 
for State purposes." 

Chief Justice Marshall, in the next paragraph, as will be seen 
by reference, disposes of the question raised by counsel, "who 
has contended that Congress must be considered in two distinct 
characters." 

Havinof thus dismissed from further consideration the con- 
struction contended for by counsel for the negative. Chief Justice 
Marshall proceeds to express the unanimous opinion of the court, 
based on its own construction of the powers and restrictions of 
the Constitution in the exercise by Congress of authority to levy 
direct taxes on the District of Columbia. 



The importance of the foregoing will be apparent in consider- 
ing the brief opinions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mat- 
tingly V. District of Columbia, delivered by Justice Strong, Gib- 
bons V. District of Columbia, delivered by Justice Gray, and 
Welsh V. Cook, delivered by Justice Hunt. 

In the case of Mattingiy v. District of Columbia, the only con- 
stitutional reference made by Justice Strong is as follows : 



" Under the Constitution Congress has power to exercise ex- 
clusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District, and 
that includes the power of taxation (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 
264). Congress may legislate within the District respecting the 
people and property therein, as may the legislature of any State 
overy any of its subordinate municipalities." 

In the case of Welsh v. Cook (cited by Justice Gray in Gibbon 
V. District of Columbia), the only constitutional reference indi- 
cated therein by Justice Hunt, who delivered the opinion, is as 
follows : 

" It is not open to reasonable doubt that Congress had the 
power to invest, and did invest, the District government with 
legislative authority." 

In the case of Gibbons v. District of Columbia, Justice Gray, 
delivering the opinion of the court, says : 



14 

"The objection taken in argument * * * jg founded on a 
misunderstanding of the case of Loughborough v. Blake (5 
Wheat. 317). 

" The point there decided was that an act of Congress laying 
a direct tax throughout the United States in proportion to the 
census to be taken by the United States might comprehend the 
District of Columbia; and the power of Congress, legislating as 
a local legislature for the District, to lay taxes for District pur- 
poses only, in like manner as the legislature of a State for State 
purposes, was expressly admitted and has never since been 
doubted (Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317 ; Welsh v. Cook, 
97 U. S. 541 ; Mattiugly v. District of Columbia, 97 U. S. 687)." 

In his opinion, Justice Gray quotes Chief Justice Marshall's 
language in the case of Loughborough v. Blake, to the following 
extent : 

" That an act of Congress laying a direct tax throughout the 
United /States in proportion to the census to be taken by the 
V7iUed States, might comprehend the District of Columbia." 

But when Justice Gray continues and says, " and the power of 
Congress, legislating as a local legislature for the District, to lay 
taxes for District purposes only, in like manner as the legislature 
of a State for State purposes, was expressly admitted, and has 
never since been doubted (Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 
317)," he does not quote from the decision of the court in the 
case of Loughborough v. Blake, but from the admission of coun- 
sel for the negative, which Chief Justice Marshall recites merely 
to give the position taken by counsel preliminary to formulating 
the opinion of the court. 

Justice Gray further says: "In the exercise of this power 
Congress, like any State legislature, unrestricted by any consti- 
tutio?ial provisions, may, at its discretion, wholly exempt certain 
classes of property from taxation, or may tax them at a lower 
rate than any other property." 

It is a very remarkable statement, as made by Mr. Justice 
Gray, when he says that in the case of Loughborough v. Blake 
"it was expressly admitted, and has never since been doubted," 
that Congress had the power "to lay taxes for District pur- 
poses only, in like manner as the legislature of a State for State 
purposes." 

Nowhere in the case cited can any such admission be found. 



15 

A fair consideration of the exhaustive opinion of Chief Justice 
Marshall will serve to confirm the expression of Mr. Justice Gray, 
to the effect that some one's opinion "is founded on a misunder- 
standing of the case of Loughborough v. Blake." 

The entire opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in the case of 
Loughborough v. Blake is printed herewith, and all jurists, 
lawyers, and laymen are challenged to find any language therein 
which indicates the opiuions of Justices Strong, Hunt, and Gray, 
other than in the words used in the admission of counsel pre- 
ceding the opinion of the court. And the same challenge is ex- 
tended to the case of Cohen v. Virginia. 

In the case of Cohen v. Virginia (the only case cited by Justice 
Strong in Mattingly v. District of Columbia), Chief Justice Mar- 
shall says : 

" In the enumeration of the powers of Congress, which is 
made in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, 
we find that of exercising exclusive legislation over such District 
as shall become the seat of government. 

" This poiver, like all others tchich are specific, is conferred on 
Congress as the legislature of the Union ^ for strip them (f that 
character and they will not possess it. In no other character 
can it be exercised. 

^'- In legislating for the District they necessarily preserve the 
character (f the legislature of the Union, for it is in that char- 
acter alone that the Constitution confers on them this po'wer of 
exclusive legislation^ 

Chief Justice Marshall further states : 

"One of the gentlemen sought to illustrate his proposition 
that Congress, when legislating for the District, assumed a dis- 
tinct character, and was reduced to a mere local legislature 
whose laws could possess no obligation out of the ten miles 
square, by reference to the complex character of this court." 

The Chief Justice then states the oj^inion of the court on that 
point as follows : 

"'■ J3ut v)e Tcnoto that the principle does not apply, and the rea- 
son is that Congress is not a local legislature, but exercises this 
particnlar poioer, liJce all its other poioers, in its high character 
as the legislature of the Union.''^ 

Do the brief announcements of the U. S. Supreme Court in the 
cases cited, as opinionated by Justices Strong, Gray, and Hunt, 



16 

make void the law as stated in the elaborate and exhaustive 
opinions of the court, as delivered by Chief Justice Marshall ? 

These justices seem to have accepted the theory that Congress, 
as a legislative body, could transfer to others its exclusive au- 
thority to legislate. 

Per contra, it is contended by many able jurists, who seem to 
take the common-sense view of the proposition, that when a con- 
stitution confers on a body politic " the power to exercise ex- 
clusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," such body cannot 
delegate its powers to any other legislative authority. 

In 1820, when the case of Loughborough v. Blake was thor- 
oughly considered and decided, the interpretations and conclu- 
sions as to the powers and restrictions of the Constitution con- 
ferred on Congress were fresh and familiar to the Supreme Court 
of the United States at that period by reason of its frequent 
consideration in construing that instrument in its application to 
the general welfare and destiny of the then young republic of 
States, and in guiding its course onward to its present and future 
greatness by constitutional flash-lights and well-defined land- 
marks. There was no somnolence on the bench in those days. 

The following extract from Mr. Justice Story's dedication of 
his " Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States " is 
hereto appended in order that the people of the District, includ- 
ing lawyers, laymen, jurists, and the national legislators, may 
have a clear and appreciable conception of the supreme judicial 
character of Chief Justice Marshall, who has so clearly and ex- 
haustively defined the powers and restrictions of the Constitution 
conferred on Congress in the exercise of exclusive legislation over 
the District of Columbia, the seat of government of the great 
Republic of America : 

"Cambridge, Mass., 1832. 
" To the Honorable John Marshall, LL. D., 

" Chief Justice of the United States of America. 

" Sir : I ask the favor of dedicating this work to you. I know 
not to whom it could with so much propriety be dedicated as to 
one whose youth was engaged in the arduous enterprises of the 
Revolution, whose manhood assisted in framing and supporting 
the National Constitution, and whose maturer years have been 
devoted to the task of unfolding its powers and illustrating its 
principles. 



17 

"When, indeed, I look back upon your judicial labors during a 
period of thirty-two years, it is difficult to suppress astonishment 
at their extent and variety, and at the exact learning, the pro- 
found reasoning, and the solid principles which they everywhere 
display. 

"Other judges have attained an elevated reputation by similar 
labors in a single department of jurisprudence. But in one de- 
partment (it need scarcely be said that I allude to that of consti- 
tutional law) the common consent of your countrymen has ad- 
mitted you to stand without a rival. Posterity will assuredly 
confirm, by its deliberate award, what the present age has ap- 
proved as an act of undisputed justice. 

"Your expositions of constitutional law enjoy a rare and extra- 
ordinary authority. They constitute a monument of fame far be- 
yond the ordinary memorials of political and military glory. They 
are destined to enlighten, instruct, and convince future genera- 
tions, and can scarcely perish but with the memory of the Con- 
stitution itself. They are the victories of a mind accustomed to 
grapple with difficulties, capable of unfolding the most compre- 
hensive truths with masculine simplicity and severe logic, and 
prompt to dissipate the illusions of ingenious doubt and subtle 
argument and impassioned eloquence. The}' remind us of some 
mighty river of our own country which, gathering in its course 
the contributions of many tributary streams, pours at last its own 
current into the ocean — deep, clear, and irresistible." 

Justice Story was associated with Chief Justice Marshall on the 
bench for many years. 



THE LAW AT PEESENT ENFOECED BY CONGRESS. 

/ 

In the act of June 11, 1878, giving a permanent form of goy?^ 
ernment to the District of Columbia, it is provided that the Dis- 
trict Commissioners shall annually submit, the Secretai-y of the 
Treasury revise, and the Commissioners transmit to Congress 
estimates of the amounts necessary to defray the expenses of the 
District of Columbia for the next fiscal year, and — 

" To the extent to which Congress shall approve of said esti- 
mates Congress shall appropriate the amount of 50 per cent, 
thereof; and the remaining 50 i^er cent, of such approved esti- 
mates shall be levied and assessed upon the taxable property and 
privileges in said District, other than the property of the United 
States and of the District of Columbia." 




18 

Included among other recent improvements of " the seat of 
the Government of the United States," in which Congress im- 
poses a tax on the District for one half the expense, is the con- 
struction of a system of sewers ; the pavement of streets ; en- 
larging receiving reservoirs ; establishing a permanent system of 
highways ; extension of streets ; improving public alleys ; estab- 
lishing the National Zoological Park and the National Rock 
Creek Park ; and the attempted construction of a national water- 
supply tunnel. 

The expenditures for the National Zoological Park were 
$443,500— one-half, $221,750, taxed on Ih.' District ; the National 
Rock Creek Park cost $1,200,000— one half of which, $600,000, 
is taxed on the District ; improving the receiving reservoir, 
$60,000 —one-half, $30,000, taxed on the District ; and for other 
similar expenditures of the District government for the national 
improvement of the seat of Federal authority, the same propor- 
tion, one-half, " shall be levied and assessed upon the taxable 
property and privileges in said District, other than the property 
of the United States and of the District of Columbia." 

A few instances of the arbitrary authority of the taxing power 
enacted by Congress in exercising exclusive legislation over the 
District will illustrate the danger ahead to property-owners, un- 
less the decisions of the Supreme Court, delivered by Chief Jus- 
tice Marshall, are enforced as the supreme law of the land gov- 
erning both Congress and the District. 

In the attempted construction of the National Water Supply 
Tunnel, Congress aj)propriated $2,570,279.30, which was expended 
by the Engineer Department of the Government in its plan to 
increase the water supply for the seat of the Government of the 
United States. 

One-half of the amount sunk in the tunnel— $1,285,139.65 — is 
imposed as a direct tax on the property of the people located 
within the District, " other than the property of the United States 
and of the District of Columbia." 

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
the case of Loughborough v. Blake, is, that the power of Congress 
to levy a direct tax on the District of Columbia is conditioned by 
the express declaration that its " power to lay and collect direct 
taxes within the District of Columbia is in proportion to the 
census directed to be taken by the Constitution." 



19 

Applying the rule of that decision to the National Water Sup- 
ply Tunnel tax, and it will be found that $9,450 — instead of 
$1,285,139.65 — is the constitutional proportion of the tax which 
the District of Columbia is liable for. 

DIRECT TAX AND POPULATION. 

The population of the District of Columbia in 1890, according 
" to the census directed to be taken by the Constitution," was 
230,393. The population of the United States taken by the same 
census was 62,622,250. The population of the District of Co- 
lumbia is, in round numbers, 1-272 of the population of the 
United States ; and in that proportion of the $2,570,279.30 water 
supply tunnel tax, expended and wasted by the general Govern- 
ment, the only amount that can be levied on the District is simply 
its proportion, to wit, the sum of $9,450, which is at the rate 
provided for in the Constitution of the United States, as ex- 
pounded by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Loughborough 
V. Blake. 

On the same basis of proportion the amount of direct tax to 
be imposed on the District for the Zoological National Park is 
but $1,630, instead of $221,750. By the same proportion the 
amount the District can constitutionally be taxed for in payment 
of the National Rock Creek Park is $4,410, instead of $600,000. 

The supreme law of the land, in full force and effect by the 
decision of the Supreme Court, declares that " the principle of 
apportionment, also established in the Constitution, secures the 
District from any oppressive exercise of the poioer to lay and 
collect direct taxes " (Loughborough v. Blake). 

It is a simple matter of computation to apply the rule to all the 
unconstitutional and oppressive taxesimjjosed on the District of 
Columbia, including its bonded indebtedness of some $18,000,000, 
the proceeds of which were expended by officers of the United 
States Government, authorized by Congress, in improving the 
national seat of the Government of the United States ; the pro- 
portion of which the District is liable for is easily calculated. 

It might be asked how " laying taxes for District purposes 
only " can be segregated so as to distinguish what, if any, is local 
from what is national ■? 



20 

All improvements made by the imposition of direct taxes on 
the District of Columbia are for the development and benefit of 
" the seat of the Government of the United States," held in trust 
by Congress, under its exclusive power of legislation, for the in- 
terest and general welfare of all the Slates and people of the 
Republic. 

The complete answer is furnished by Chief Justice Marshall in 
the case of Loughborough v. Blake, in which he says : " The 
standard, then, by which direct taxes must be laid, is applicable 
to this District, and will enable Congress to apportion on it its 
just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as 
on the respective States. If the tax is laid on in this proportion 
it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in pro- 
portion to the census or enumeration referred to." 

Justice Story, in his work on the Constitution (section 998), 
says : 

" When a direct tax is to be laid on the District or the Terri- 
tories it can be laid onli/ by the rule of apportionment." 

Just as well might it be contended that Congress has the 
power, under the exercise of its exclusive legislation, to impose 
a heavier duty upon foreign goods imported into the District 
than is imposed upon the people of the States as to contend that 
it has the power to lay a direct tax upon the people of the Dis- 
trict for improving the nation's capital without at the same time 
imposing a similar tax upon all the States and Territories of the 
Union. 

As an evidence that Congress does not always conform to the 
act of June 11, 1878, which provides that the United States shall 
appropriate for one-half of the expenses of governing the Dis- 
trict, the following recent items, furnished from the books of 
the national treasury, aptly illustrate : 

The appropriation by Congress of $90,000 for defraying the 
expenses of the national encampment of the Grand Army of the 
Republic — veterans who had breasted the waves of battle in 
deadly conflict, in which the destiny of the national seat of gov- 
ernment was imperilled — was wholly taxed " on the property and 
privileges in the District, other than the property of the United 
States and of the District of Columbia." 

The appropriation by Congress of $1:0,000 in 1892 for im- 



21 

proving- public alleys at the national seat of Government was 
wholly taxed on the District. 

The appropriation of $3,000 for a national public bathing 
beach was wholly taxed on the District. 

Tbe appropriation of $5 000 on account of a permanent sys- 
tem of highways in the Tederal capital of the nation was wholly 
taxed on the District ; as was also the appropriation of $5,000 
for the extension of North Capitol street. 

And yet the supreme law of the land, as expounded by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, says that " the power to 
lay and collect direct taxes within the District of Columbia is in 
proportion to the census directed to be taken by the Constitu- 
tion." 

DIRECT TAXATION. 

What constitutes a '■^direct tax"? 

Imposing taxes on the real estate and appurtenances of the 
people of the District for the govei'nment of the District of Co- 
lumbia is a direct tax. 

The Constitution of the United States provides that "repre- 
sentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the sev- 
eral States which may be included within this Union, according 
to their respective numbers." 

"No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid unless in pro- 
portion to the census hereinbefore directed to be taken." 

In the case of Loughborough u. Blake the Supreme Court de- 
cides that a direct tax imposed throughout the Union includes 
the District of Columbia. 

In the case of Springer v. United States (102 U. S. 586), the 
constitutional interpretatiou of what is a direct tax is elaborately 
set forth. 

Justice Swayne, in delivering the opinion of the court, in- 
cludes a record of laws enacted and decisions of the Supreme 
Court on the subject of direct taxation. Some of the cases cited 
are appended. The court said : 

" Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of 
the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expresssed in that 
instrument, and taxes on land^ 



22 

The opinion cites as follows : 

Veazie Bank v. Fenno (8 Wall. 533), wherein Chief Justice 
Chase, in his elaborate examination of the subject, says : 

" It may be rightfully affirmed that in the practical construc- 
tion of the Constitution by Congress direct taxes have been 
limited to taxes on land and appurtenances, and taxes on polls, 
or cajDitation taxes." 

Scholey v. Reio (23 Wall. 331), wherein Justice Clifford, for 
the court, says: 

" Taxes on houses, lauds, and other permanent real estate have 
always been deemed to be direct taxes, and capitation taxes, by 
the express words of the Constitution, are in the same category." 

Justice Swayne cites Chancellor Kent, Justice Story, and other 
commentators on the Constitution, in affirmation of what is a 
direct tax as decided by the court. 

In the opinion of the court deciding that the income tax was 
not a direct tax. Justice Swayne says : 

"The clause of the Constitution bearing on this subject is as 
follows: 'No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless 
in proportion to the census hereinbefore directed to be taken.' 

" Was the tax here in question a direct tax "? If it was, not 
having been laid according to the requirements of the Constitu- 
tion, it must be admitted that the laws imposiug it, and the pro- 
ceedings taken under them by the assessor and collector for its 
imposition and collection, were all void." 

The tax laid on the District for one-half the expenses for the 
government of the District of Columbia, the nation's capital, is 
a direct tax on " the property and j^rivileges," on the real estate 
and appurtenances, in the District, " other than that of the United 
States and of the District of Columbia." 

According to the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 
States above quoted, the laws imposing a direct tax on the Dis- 
trict, " not having been laid according to the requirements of the 
Constitution, the proceedings taken under them by the assessor 
and collector" of the District of Columbia "for its imposition 
and collection " are " all void." 

A statement from the assessor of the District shows that the 
number of taxable real-estate owners listed in the District of 
Columbia is 26,869, and that the listed taxable personal-property 
owners is 2,044, making the total number of tax-payers in theDis- 



23 

trict, upon whose " property and j)rivileges " a direct tax is laid for 
one-half the expenses of governing the district selected as the 
capital of the United States, is but 28,913 of the 62,622,250 pop- 
ulation of the whole country by the census of 1890. 

And Congress, as the national trustee, exercising exclusive 
legislation over the seat of government of the United States, in 
trust for the use and benefit of all the States and people of the 
Union, lays a direct tax on " the property and privileges " of less 
than 30,000 people, to pay one-half the expenses of governing 
the federal capital of a nation of 70,000,000 people. 

The 230,379 population of the District of Columbia per census 
of 1890 is comprised of 154,682 white, and 75,697 colored people. 

TAXES COLLECTED. 

The Government of the United States has collected $37,112,- 
823.10 from the " property and privileges " of the people located 
within the limits of the federal seat of Government since the 
law of June, 1878, was enacted, which provides that the "prop- 
erty and privileges " of the District shall be taxed for one-half 
the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia. 
All of this sum was collected by the United States officers and 
paid into the Treasury of the United States. The amounts col- 
lected per annum are as follows : 

The year endmg June 30, 1880 $2,096,661 93 

1881 2,056,523 50 

1882 1,765,099 70 

1883 2,007,001 06 

1884 1,978,068 47 

1885 2,025,800 19 

1886 , 2,122,392 64 

1887 2,323,262 26 

1888 2,647,410 09 

1889 2,544,192 68 

$21,566,422 52 

1890 2,907,314 96 

1891 2,874,234 71 

1892 3,025,079 76 

1893 3,139,771 15 

(Conservative estimate), 1894 3,600,000 00 

$15,546,400 58 



24 

The rule of apportionment for laying direct taxes is stated in 
the Constitution as follows : 

"Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, 
which may be included within this Union, according to their 
respective numbers. 

" No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid unless in pro- 
portion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be 
taken." 

The Supreme Court has decided that the District of Columbia 
is included with the States in the enforcement of this constitu- 
tional provision. The act of Congress of June, 1878, provides 
that Congress shall appropriate for one-half of the expenses of 
the government of the District of Columbia, " and tbat the re- 
maining half shall be levied and assessed upon the taxable 
property and privileges of the District, other than the property 
of the United States, and of the District of Columbia." 

During the ten years from 1880 to 1890, the census of 1880 was 
the rule for apportionment of direct taxes as provided for in the 
Constitution. During that period the "property and privileges" 
of the District paid into the United States Treasury the sum of 
$21,566,422.52. Assuming that Congress appropriated a similar 
amount for its half, the total would be $43,132,845.04 expended 
by the United States for the government of the District of Co- 
lumbia during that period. 

The population of the United States by the census of 1880 was 
50,155,783. By the same census the population of the District 
of Columbia was 177,624, which was 1-282 of the population of 
the Union. 

On the basis of apportionment as provided in the Constitution 
of the United States, the persons, property, and privileges of the 
District of Columbia would be liable for only 1-282 part of the 
$43,132,845.04 expended by the United States in the government 
of its national capital during the period stated. That proportion 
is $152,953.00, required by the rule of the Constitution, the 
supreme law of the land, instead of $21,566,422.52, as demanded 
by Congress and as collected and paid into the Treasury of the 
United States. 

The population of the United States by the census of 1890 
was 62,622,250, and of the District of Columbia 230,393, which is 



25 

1-272 of the population of the Union. The amount levied and 
collected from the persons, property, and privileges of the District 
for the five years under the census of 1890 is $15,546,400.58. 
Congress appropriating a like sum, makes the total $31,092,801.16 
expended by the United States during that period for the gov- 
ernment of the capital of the nation. 

The constitutional proportion of that sum for which the Dis- 
trict of Columbia is liable is 1-272, which is $114,311.00, instead 
of $15,546,400.58 collected from the District and paid into the 
Treasury of the United States. 

DISTKICT OF COLUMBIA DEDICATED TO NATIONAL 

PURPOSES. 

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Cran- 
dall V. Nevada (6 Wall. 43), Justice Miller delivering the opinion, 
has this to say about the important and exclusive national pur- 
poses for which the District of Columbia was selected as the seat 
of the Government of the Union : 

" The people of the United States constitute one nation. They 
have a Government in which all of them are deepl}' interested. 
This Government has uecessarilj' a capital established by law 
where its principal operations are conducted. Here sits its legis- 
lature, composed of senators and representatives from the States 
and from the people of the States. Here resides the President, 
directing, through thousands of agents, the execution of the laws 
over all this vast country. Here is the seat of the supreme judi- 
cial power of the nation, to which all its citizens have a right to 
resort to claim justice at its hands. Here are the great executive 
departments, administering the offices of the mails, of the public 
lands, of the collection and distribution of the public revenues, 
and of our foreign relations. These are all established and con- 
ducted under the admitted powers of the Federal Government. 
That Government has a right to call to this point (its capital) any 
or all of its citizens to aid in its service as members of Congress, 
of the courts, of the executive departments, and to fill all its 
other offices. ... In all these it demands the service of its 
citizens, and is entitled to bring them from all quarters of the 
nation. 

" But, if the Government has these rights on her own account, 
the citizen also has correlative rights. He has the right to come 
to the seat of Government to assert any claim he may have upon 



26 

the Government, or to transact any business he may have with 
it ; to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in admin- 
istering its functions." 

In the same opinion Justice Miller quotes the views of Chief 
Justice Taney in the Passenger cases (7 How. 283), as follows: 

"Living as we do under a common government, charged with 
the great concerns of the whole nation, every citizen of the United 
States, from the most remote States or Territories, is entitled to 
free access to the principal departmeuts established at Washing- 
ton. For all the great purposes for which the Federal Govern- 
ment was formed we are one people, with one common country." 

In the case of Scott a. Sanford (19 How. 393, 448), in discus- 
sing the powers of the General Government to obtain and hold 
colonies or dej)endent Territories over which Congress might 
claim the right to legislate without restriction, Chief Justice 
Taney says : 

" Whatever the Government acquires it acquires for the benefit 
of the people of the several States who created it. It is their 
trustee, acting for them and charged with the duty of promoting 
the interests of the whole people of the Union in the exercise of 
the powers specifically granted." 

The Government " acquired " exclusive legislative authority 
over the District of Columbia for the seat of Government of the 
United States, and Congress " is the trustee . . . charged 
with the duty of promoting the interests of the whole people of 
the Union in the exercise of the jDOwer specifically granted." 

Among the "powers specifically granted" which Congress is 
" charged with " in " the duty of promoting the interests of the 
whole people of the Union " is the construction of a comprehen- 
sive national system of permanent public improvements at the 
seat of Government of the United States, commensurate with the 
magnitude of the important Government interests there and 
speedily augmenting, and the rapidly increasing force of em- 
ployees and their families called there from all sections of the 
country to conduct the afiairs of the General Government ; and 
also for the use, benefit, and comfort of the countless thousands of 
nalional tax-paying citizens of the Rejjublic who are continuously 
visiting the federal capital on business connected with the gov- 
ernment of the nation. 



27 

These emphatic opinions of the United States Supreme Court, 
in its interpretation of the Constitution, clearly defined for what 
great and exclusive national purposes the District of Columbia 
was dedicated as the seat of the Government of the United States. 

Therefore, to keep pace with the progress of the country, and 
consequently rapid increase of public business to be transacted 
at the federal capital, the comprehensive system of national im- 
provements already initiated therein should be extended on a 
scale commensurate with the continuous increase at the seat of 
Government of the public affairs of the nation, resulting from the 
rapid progress in population and development of the boundless 
resources of the sturdy young Republic. 

These improvements are required as necessary for the use, 
health, comfort, and convenience of the Government officials who, 
in the discharge of their national duties, are domiciled within the 
District, accompanied by their families and attendants ; for the 
thousands of Government officers throughout the nation whose 
official duties require their presence from time to time at the 
seat of Government; for a haven of rest for the grand corps of 
retired army and navy officers and veterans and their families, 
whose valor on land and water in defence of the nation illumi- 
nates the pages of history ; and also for the official residence of 
the representatives of all the' foreign Governments, their families 
and retinue. 

In view of these national purposes for which the District of 
Columbia was dedicated, the Supreme Court of the United States 
has decided that a direct tax for the improvement of the national 
seat of the Government can be imposed only in proportion to 
the census directed to be taken by the Constitution (Lough- 
borough V. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317). 

The entire nation of 70,000,000 population is interested in and 
benefited by the improvement, progress, and development of the 
seat of the Government of the United States, as well as the 
300,000 people of the nation who are domiciled within its limits. 

The capital of the nation is the common heritage of all the peo- 
ple of the Republic. 

And yet Congress, acting as the trustee of the whole nation, 
continues to impose a direct tax for one half the expenses of the 
Government of the District of Columbia " upon the property and 



28 

privileges in said District other than the property of the United 
States and of the District of Columbia." 

The constitutional powers of Congress extend over the entire 
area of the District of Columbia in the same manner as over the 
Capitol and other public buildings and grounds. It can take 
possession of every foot of laud owned by citizens in the Dis- 
trict, by paying just compensation therefor, and convert it into 
public uses if necessary. It can occupy every acre of the Dis- 
txict for public buildings and grounds exclusively for the use of 
the Government of the United States, and can prohibit all com- 
mercial business or private residence therein except so far as 
such business or residence is exclusively for the purposes of the 
Government of the Union. 

It is no sufficient answer to the plan of extending public im- 
provements throughout the District to say that the Government 
does not require all the area of the District for public purposes. 
It may require it all in time, for the future greatness of the Re- 
public seems unlimited. 

The only limit on the territorial area of the seat of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States is defined in the Constitution, 
where it says : 

" Such district, not exceeding ten .miles square." 

The district selected did comprise ten miles square, but the 
portion south of the Potomac was subsequently receded to Vir- 
fifinia, thus reducing the original district about one-third of its 
area. 

The section of the Constitution which confers on Congress the 
power to exercise exclusive legislation over the seat of Govern- 
ment includes the following : 

"And to exercise like authority over all places . . . for 
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other 
needful buildings." 

In illustration of the similar application of this exercise by 
Congress of exclusive legislative authority, take the Fortress 
Monroe reservation at Old Point Comfort, Virginia, as an exam- 
ple. The lawful regulations prescribed for governing the Fortress 
Monroe reservation are executed by military officers of the United 



29 

States. The regulations enacted for the government of the Dis- 
trict of Cokimbia are executed by three District Commissioners, 
two civil and one military, officers of the United States. 

The authority exercised in both cases is conferred by the Con- 
stitution, in the same section and language thereof. 

The people of the District of Columbia, not connected with 
the Government of the United States, are permitted to reside 
therein by the sufferance of the General Government, as like priv- 
ileges are extended to the residents on the Fortress Monroe 
reservation, with this difference : 

The land-owners of the District of Columbia hold title to their 
realty until the same is needed for Government purposes, and 
then they must surrender it, receiving jnst compensation therefor. 
The Fortress Monroe I'eservation is owned entirely by the United 
States, the residents thereon have no title to the realty, and, like 
the people of the District, they carry on business merely by the 
sufferance of the Government. Property-holders in the District 
of Columbia and the people located oh the Fortress Monroe res- 
ervation must vacate their premises whenever the United States 
needs for pulilic purposes the property they occupy. 

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN THE DISTRICT. 

There are now over 20,000 persons, officials of the United States 
Government, employed and domiciled within the territory of the 
District, and the number is continuously augmenting by reason 
of the increase of population and development of the resources 
of the nation. 

It is the usual rule to compute a family of five persons to each 
household, and, based on that ratio, there are over 100,000 people 
in the District associated in the administration of the affairs 
of the General Government. 

Besides that number whose residence at the seat of Government 
is required to transact the public business, there is also required 
from time to time the presence of other officials of the United 
States from all sections of the country. A vast number of na- 
tional tax-paying citizens of the Republic have business interests 
with the General Government which require their presence at the 



30 

federal capital, besides the endless trains of American yeomanry 
who annually visit the capital of their country. 

A comprehensive system of public improvements is required 
and is necessary at the capital of the nation for the use, health, 
and comfort of this vast aggregation of citizens of the United 
States in the public service of the Government and of all persons 
having business relations with the Government to be transacted 
at its federal capital. 

"Where, then, can the dividing line be drawn between a national 
system of public improvements at the seat of the Government of 
the United States for the general welfare of the entire nation, 
and the necessary improvements for the use and comfort of the 
comparatively small unofficial population who, by the sufferance 
of the General Government, are permitted to reside within the 
District ? 

These comprehensive improvements are required to be con- 
ducted on a scale commensurate with the magnitude of the pub- 
lic business of the whole country carried on at its seat of Govern- 
ment, and would be so coustfacted even if there were no private 
ownership of real estate to tax within its boundary. And yet, 
under existing laws. Congress imposes a direct tax for one-half 
the expenses for improving and governing the seat of the Govern- 
ment of the United States "upon the property and privileges of 
the District other than the property of the United States and of 
the District of Columbia." 

Every official connected with the improvement and government 
of the District of Columbia is an officer of the United States Gov. 
ernment, and diaws his salary for services from the Treasury of 
the United States. 

It would seem to be as constitutional and just to impose a direct 
tax on " the property and privileges " of the cities of St. Louis, 
Memphis, and New Orleans to pay one- half of the expenditures of 
the General Government for improving the Mississippi River for 
public uses as to levy a direct tax on the District for one half the 
expenses of the improvement and government of the capital 
of the United States. And this illustration will apply to all Gov- 
ernment disbursements for public improvements throughout the 
country. 



31 



CONCLUSIONS. 

After a full consideration of the construction of the Constitu- 
tion, and its application to the government of the District of Co- 
lumbia, in the decisions rendered in the exhaustive and unani- 
mous opinions of the United States Supreme Court, delivered by 
Chief Justice Marshall, and which opinions have never been over- 
ruled, the conclusion seems clear — 

That Congress can o)dy legally enact, and the courts maintain, 
a law for laying a direct tax " upon the projierty and privileges " 
of the peojjle of the District of Columbia when such tax is laid in 
proportion to the census of population as directed to be taken 
by the Constitution. 

That the only rate at which " property and privileges " in the 
District of Columbia can have a direct tax during the legal opera- 
tive force of the U. S. census of 1890, is in proj^ortion of 
230,393, the population of the District, to the 62,622,250, pop- 
ulation of the United States, the ratio of proportion being 1 to 
282. 

That the Constitution confers on Congress power " to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever " over the nation's 
seat of government, but it limits the power of Congress in laying 
a direct tax on the property of the District unless laid in propor- 
tion to the census of the United States. 

That a direct tax levied in the District of Columbia has no con- 
stitutional status, unless at the same time it is in force through- 
out the country in proportion to the census of the United States, 
nor would indirect taxes imposed in the District be within the 
laws of the Constitution unless the same taxes were uniform 
throughout the United States. 

That a direct tax laid in any other manner is unconstitutional 
and void. 

In the verification of this statement, Mr. Justice Swayne, in 
the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Springer case, says : 
" Where a direct tax has been laid not according to the require- 
ments of the Constitution, it must be admitted the laws impos- 
ing it, and the proceedings taken under them by the assessor and 
collector for its imposition and collection, were all void.'''' 



32 

The legality of a direct tax in the District of Columbia is de- 
fined in the words of the Constitution, to wit : "iVo direct tax 
shall be laid ludess in proportion to the cejisus'''' of the United 
States. 

That Congress is not a local legislature for the District in the 
sense applied by the state legislatures for the government of 
" their several subordinate municipalities." Congress legislates 
exclusively over the seat of Government of the United States in 
its character as the legislature of the Union. 

That powers and restrictious of the Constitution expressly con- 
ferred and laid on Congress to " exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever " over the federal capital of the nation pro- 
hibit Congress from delegating such powers to any local body 
to legislate for municipal or any other j)urposes over the seat of 
the Government of the United States. 

That it was explicitly denied by Chief Justice Marshall that 
Congress can legislate "as a local legislature, to lay taxes for 
District purposes only, in like manner as the legislature of a State 
for State purposes." In Cohen v. Virginia, he says : 

"Congress is not a local legislature, but exercises . . . all its 
powers in its high character as the legislature of the Union." 

That all acts of Congress for the government of the District dedi- 
cated to the federal capital are executed by officers of the United 
States. Such laws are for the development and improvement of 
the seat of Government for public purposes. 

That all private and personal improvements and business in- 
dustries in the District permitted by the sufferance of the Gov- 
ernment must conform to and comply with the regulations en- 
forced by the officers of the United States Government under 
laws enacted by Congress legislating in its high character as 
the legislature of the whole Union, and the acts of Congress re- 
lating thereto can be constitutionally construed and applied in 
no other manner. 

That it is the laws of the nation which govern the people and 
affairs of the District of Columbia, not the ordinances of a local 
body legislating for municipal purposes. 

The constitutional laws of Congress enacted for the govern- 
ment of the federal capital are comprehensive in their applica- 



33 

tion for all the uses, benefits, purposes, and comforts of the peo- 
ple of the United States and the general welfare of the nation. 
It is a national government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people of the great American republic, within which the citi- 
zens of the District of Columbia are included. 

All of which is herewith respectfully submitted for the con- 
sideration, absorption, digestion, and evolution of the constitu- 
tional statesmen of Congress, the tax-payers of the District of 
Columbia, and the body politic in general. 

HALLET KILBOUKN. 

Washington, D. C, Mmj 8, 1894. 

Since the foregoing was compiled the United States Supreme 
Court, in its recent opinion in the income-tax case, says : " The 
requirement of the Constitution is that no direct tax shall he laid 
otherwise than b}^ apportionment." " That Congress must im- 
pose direct taxes hj the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes 
by the rule of uniformity." 



A FEW BRIEF PEN SKETCHES 

Illustrating Some of the Attractions of the Nation's 

Seat of Government. 



The District of Columbia and Washington City have become 
the pride of the nation. 

Washington is the most cosmopolitan city in the country. 

It has 300,000 population, and is rapidly moving onward. 

It has the best paved broad avenues and streets of any city in 
the land. 

It has more magnificent natural suburban scenery and sur- 
roundings than any other capital city on the globe. 

It contains the largest and finest public buildings in the 
world. 

It is the most attractive city for residents, sojourners, and 
visitors on the continent. 

The majority of its population are of the most intelligent peo- 
ple of the Union. 

It is rapidly becoming the national centre of education, science, 
art, and literature, as it is already the political and social centre 
of the United States. 

It is also rapidly becoming the residence of people of wealth, 
refinement, and culture from all parts of our country. 

Its universities, colleges, academies, public schools, seminaries, 
and other institutions of education and useful instruction are 
among the foremost in the land. 

It is one of the healthiest localities in the country, and with 
the completion of the Potomac river front imj^rovements, will be 
the model sanitary city of the land. 

Washington has broader avenues, larger public grounds and 
reservations, and more parks, circles, triangles, open spaces, and 
miles of thrifty shade trees in proportion to its area than any 
other city in the world. 



35 

It presents the best inducements for investments in property, 
as its prosperity, growth, and grandeur are assured by the entire 
nation. 

The continued development of the vast resources throughout 
the Republic increases the business of the General Government 
to be transacted at the National Capital ; the progress of the 
country at large thus insures the continued prosperity of its 
national seat of Government. 

No other city in the land has so substantial a guarantee for its 
future ; and while the national Government exists, Washington 
and the District will advance with the growth and development 
of the Republic. 

Its climate in the fall, winter, and spring is unexceptionable ; 
in the summer it is very enjoyable with its superabundance of 
shade trees ; its lawns, circles, triangles, squares, and parks all 
blooming with foliage. 

Every new quarter-section of land settled upon — 

Every new mine discovered and operated — 

Every new manufactory established — 

Every emigrant who lands on our shores — 

Every ship that enters our ports — 

Every new business enterprise started — 

Every extension of railroad traflfic — 

Every increase of population — 

Every invention and development of new resources and indus- 
tries — 

In short, everything that pertains to the greatness and advance- 
ment of the nation increases the Government's business at Wash- 
ington ; and while other cities throughout the country have im- 
portant special avenues of trade, commerce, and general business, 
the whole country pays tribute to the progress and prosperity of 
its National Capital. 

The government of Washington and the District of Columbia 
is entirely national in its character, being under the exclusive 
control of the Congress of the United States as trustee for the 
people of the entii'e nation. 

The District of Columbia is the only neutral District in the 
Union ; its government is ahke to the people of the whole country, 
regardless of sections, creeds, politics, religion, and the peculiari- 



36 

ties and isms which to a more or less extent sometimes shape the 
sentiment of other localities. 

Citizens from all sections of the country can assemble here 
without exciting- local jealousies, as the government of the Dis- 
trict is the common heritage of the 70,000,000 people of the 
United States. 

The resident population of the District comprises citizens from 
all sections of the country. 

It is rapidly becoming the favorite place for holding conven- 
tions, anniversaries, and jDublic gatherings of the various societies 
and organizations throughout the land. 

The Departments, Institutions, Asylums, Courts, Bureaus,' 
Museums, Commissions, Offices, and Boards of the General Gov- 
ernment established here are being constantly increased in con- 
sequence of the rapid growth of national business resulting from 
the wonderful progress and develoj)ment of the vast resources of 
the Republic. 

It is the official residence of the diplomatic representatives and 
their attaches of foreign governments. 

As the capital of a great nation, cosmopolitan life exists here 
as in the capitals of the Old World, 

It is the headquarters of the Army and Navy, and the domicile 
of a great many of the officers and their families. 

In the winter season it i? the great society centre of the coun- 
try. 

It broad smooth thoroughfares jDresent the most attractive line 
of march for military and civic processions, and it is the paradise 
for bicycles. 

It contains nearly 100,000 shade trees, making Washington, in 
the summer, resemble a grand national park, interspersed with 
magnificent public buildings, handsome residences, church stee- 
ples, monuments, and statuary. 

With the completion of Potomac Park, over 700 acres of land 
will be added to the Mall, now extending from the Capitol to the 
Washington Monument, making over 1,000 acres of magnificent 
park land and all its adornments located, comparatively, in the 
heart of the city. 

The romantic Rock Creek Park of 2,000 acres and the adjoin- 
ing Zoological Park of 160 acres are within the suburbs of the 
city. 



37 

The nation's monument to George Washington, which marks 
the centre of the original District dedicated for the seat of the 
Government of the United States, is the loftiest structure ever 
erected in the world to commemorate a citizen. 

The attractive beauty of the elevated suburbs surrounding 
Washington is unequalled. The grand panorama of natural 
scenery, with its bold and varied outlines bordered by the broad 
silvery Potomac, presents a magnificent landscape view from all 
points of observation. 

Washington is the bower of paradise for the enjoyment of 
bridal couples. The coming race may be impressed with the 
greatness of the Republic which is so well exemplified in the 
grandeur of its National Capital. 

Washington has the fattest terrapin, the finest flavored ducks, 
the choicest savory crabs, the most succulent oysters, and the 
greatest variety of fish and game which Chesapeake Bay and its 
tributaries can furnish to gratify the ajDpetite of man, woman, 
and child. 



THE PROPHECY FULFILLED. 



The Agitation Procvired a Change of Government, and 
the Comprehensive Plan of Improvements Inaugu- 
rated by the Oeuius of Oov. Slieplierd 
Secured the Grand Results. 



The Evening Star, iu October, 1883, republished Mr. Kil- 
bourn's letter, written in 1868, with coniments, as follows : 

" In looking at the marvellous changes and improvements 

wrought in Washington and the District of Columbia, as a direct 

result of the change of their form of government, the following 

letter, written by Mr. Hallet Kilbourn and published in the 

'Washington Chronicle in 1868, will be read with interest. 

"As is well known by those familiar with the subject, Mr. Kil- 
bourn was one of the first, probably the very first, to agitate the 
subject of a change, and an untiring worker in its behalf. 

"His photograph of the condition of things then existing is 
wonderfully accurate, while the manner in which his predictions 
as to the growth and improvements of the city have been so 
thoroughly verified by actual results as to make them seem 
almost like a prophecy." 

The continued progress and improvements in Washington 
and the suburbs of the District still more largely emphasize the 
prophecy. 

Stating the Case. 

To the Editor of the Chronicle: 

The question of the government of the District of Columbia 
is one of national importance, and it is hoped that the agitation 
of the subject, necessitated by the near expiration of the charter 
of the city of Washington, will cause our National Legislature 
to reflect upon the matter, and in the wisdom of their delibera- 
tions establish a system of government for the District of Co- 



39 

lumbia which will properly represent the fact that the seat of 
government of the United States is exclusively under the control 
of Congress, as provided for by express terms of the Constitu- 
tion. For fifty years past Congress has delegated to the people 
of Washington the power of local legislation over matters which 
directly affect the property, and consequently the public inter- 
ests, of the people of the United States. This is contrary to the 
spirit and intention of the law which established the National 
Capital in a district over which, by the express terms of cession 
and acceptance. Congress was to exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever. The District of Columbia is the Nation's 
Capital, its government to be controlled and directed entirely 
through the legislative enactments of the Congress of the people 
of the United States, and not by the inhabitants of the District. 
The people of the District of Columbia have no inherent legis- 
lative powers ; they locate here under the broad clause of the 
Constitution of the United States, which says that " Congress 
shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over 
this District." The fact that Congress ever delegated to the 
people of the District power of local legislation is to be re- 
gretted ; for had Congress exercised exclusive legislation and 
appointed a board of Commissioners to administer the legisla- 
tion as enacted by Congress, the condition of the Nation's Capi- 
tal would be far different from what it now is. 

A City Under Affliction. 

The Capital of the United States at pi-esent is a grand skele- 
ton city and suburbs struggling under the afflictions of four dif- 
ferent legislative and governing powers — Congress, Washington 
Corporation, Georgetown Corporation, and Levy or County 
Court — each administering different laws, often conflicting, never 
harmonious. Of course, as a natural consequence of such legis- 
lation, the seat of government of the great United States is in a 
more ragged, unfinished, disjointed, uninviting, and slovenly con- 
dition than any other same-sized Territory in Christendom, 
peopled by 125,000 inhabitants ! More law and less government 
than any community in America. Had Congress never permitted 
subordinate legislation within the District the Capital of America 



40 

would to-day be the most attractive city and surroundings in tbe 
land, in which private wealth would vie with government in the 
-erection of handsome buildings, magnificent residences, the es- 
tablishment of scientific and charitable institutions, and general 
beautifying and adorning of the Capital City of our great republic. 
. What we now want is that Congress shall assume its proper 
and constitutional relations over the affairs of this District, and 
thus regenerate the nation's Capital from the slough of local 
partisan cliques and place it in the line of promotion, to become 
in time the first capital of the world. As the seat of government 
the District of Columbia belongs to the people of the United 
States, and Congress, as trustee of the people, should national- 
ize the management of its affairs ; as the Capital of the Republic, 
this District is the ward of the nation, and Congress is the guar- 
dian appointed by the Constitution to exercise exclusive control 
over it. Let the Government appoint a Board of Commissioners, 
who are qualified by character, wisdom, and experience, to ad- 
minister the affairs of the District under the proper laws enacted 
by Congress — such Commissioners and laws to be subject at all 
times to the control of Congress — and do away with all character 
and kinds of municipal legislative bodies within the territory 
selected as the seat of the national government. By no other 
form of government can Congress exercise exclusive legislation 
and nationalize the Capital of the Republic. 

In Favor or Control by Congress. 

Under such a plan the aflairs of the District would be managed 
upon a sj^stem uniform in its application ; the millions of dollars' 
worth of Government property here would be protected and cared 
for by the same authority that regulated the public interests of 
the individual property-holders ; there would be a uniform sys- 
tem of grades for streets and avenues, of sewerage, gas-lights, 
pavements, &c. In short, instead of, as is too often the case 
under our municipal legislation, an antagonism of interests be- 
tween the city and Congress, resulting in confusion, neglect, and 
disorder to our streets and avenues, there would be a harmonious 
unity in the management of the community of interests. With 
remarkable unanimity the substantial citizens, business men, 



41 

property-owners, and tax-payers of the District are earnestly in 
favor of Congress exercising exclusive control over the affairs of 
the District in the manner herein indicated, believing, firstly, that 
it is the duty of Congress to thus exclusively exercise legislative 
control of the District ; and also because they feel confident that 
the taxes collected on their property will be far more judiciously 
expended under proper Government Commissioners than through 
the manipulation of our noisy, quarreling, partisan, irresponsible 
local city governments. Municipal legislative government within 
the District of Columbia, whether one or many, always has been, 
is, and ever will be, in brief, an intolerable nuisance, an incubus 
upon the growth, development, and prosperity of the District, 
irrespective of the party, color, or sex who, for the time, may 
rule supreme in the noisy councils ; not that the individual mem- 
bers are necessarily bad men, but the system is rotten to the very 
core. Our citizens remember " Plug Ugly " times, when delega- 
tions of " roughs '" came over from Baltimore to interfere in our 
municipal elections ; when firearms were freely used, human lives 
destroyed, and persons maimed for life. The absurdity of mu- 
nicipal elections and local legislative bodies within the District of 
Columbia must be apparent to every one upon a moment's reflec- 
tion. 

GOVEBNMENT ShOULD NoT Be DELEGATED. 

This being the territory selected exclusively for the purposes 
of the United States Government, full and exclusive jurisdiction 
being invested in Congress over all the affairs of the District, 
what propriety can there be in Congress delegating to the people 
who choose to locate within such territory, under full knowledge 
that its entire and exclusive control is lodged in the Supreme 
Legislature of the nation, power to organize municipal govern- 
ments within the territory selected for the sole purpose of the 
nation's Capital, and legislate, as they often do, in a manner hos- 
tile to the views of Congress, and also affecting the property in- 
terests of the United States Government located here ? 

Municipal elections in the District create and engender bitter 
partisan feeling of the most intense character, exhibiting all the 
worst passions of bad blood frenzied with whisky, a yearly con- 
test in which human life and limb have often been sacrificed, and 



42 

not unlikely will happen again ; and these bitter strifes are con- 
ducted yearly within the limits of the nation's Capital, over which 
Congress alone has exclusive legislative jurisdiction, and wherein 
a subordinate legislative election is as much out of place as it 
would be upon one of the United States naval vessels. There is 
no political significance in these contests, for there is no principle 
of republican government involved ; it is simply a question of 
spoils. It is not a struggle for law-makers ; the only issue is 
what set of men shall collect the taxes and disburse what is not 
" unaccounted for." The citizens of the District of Columbia 
have no political status, no voice in the affairs of the nation, and 
want none ; they locate here with that full knowledge and under- 
standing ; this District was set apart as the seat of the United 
States Government, to be controlled and managed exclusively by 
the Congress of the nation. Then why shall Congress continue 
a subordinate, useless, and irresponsible power to exist within the 
precinct of its own absolute authority, wherein no single principle 
of republican government is involved, and which quite often 
exhibits a hostile antagonism toward the power which created it, 
resolutions of our City Councils against Congressional legislation 
on national affairs being not unfrequent ? 

A Bit of Prophecy. 

The substantial citizens, property-holders, business men, and 
tax-payers of the District, and all who have a just pride in the 
welfare, development, and grandeur of our nation's capital, dis- 
gusted with the abuses of local legislation, ask Congress to re- 
sume its constitutional authority over the District of Columbia 
and manage the affairs of the nation's capital in a national sense. 
Managed under the general features of Senator Morrill's bill 
(which provides for Commissioners to administer the laws of 
Congress over the District) the city of Washington and the Dis- 
trict would march onward in the path of progress with a rapidity 
unknown in its past history. Instead of remaining as at present, 
a slough of mud, dust, filth, and general dilapidation, without 
proper pavements, grades, lights, sewerage, and other first ele- 
ments of a modern city and surroundings, it would, under the 
single and responsible administration of a board of Government 



48 

Commissioners, soon develop into the grand national metropolis 
of our republic, attractive for legislator and citizen, sojourner 
and visitor from our own and foreign countries. Here would 
center wealth, art, culture, and the varied elements of intelligent 
and influential society. There would be no clashing between 
government and individual property interests, for both would be 
managed by the same authority, under the same system, for the 
same purpose — the best interests of the national capital. The 
greatness and grandeur of the national capital of our vast- 
spreading republic depends upon the management of its aflairs ; 
the people of the District have tried it for fifty years, with what 
success is unpleasantly too prominent. Now, let Congress as- 
sume control of the affairs of the national seat of Government, 
and "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over 
the District of Columbia." 

HALLET KILBOURN. 



1!|>^— 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 310 415 1 




^m 



m 



